Supreme Court explains the Mode of age determination of Victim in Rape Cases [Read the Judgment]

Answering with the central question as to the criteria to be adopted and applied to resolve the controversy over the age of a rape victim in the event of a discrepancy in the birth certificate and the school certificate, the Supreme Court of India has held (State of M.P. vs. Anoop Singh - Criminal Appeal No :442 OF 2010) that Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, is applicable in determining the age of the victim of rape, and that medial opinion can be relied on only in the absence of the documents prescribed in Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules.This issue arose in a criminal appeal from Madhya Pradesh. The facts of the case were as follows: On 03.01.2003, at about 10:30 A.M. the prosecutrix was going to school along with her sister. On realizing that she had left behind her practical note book, she returned back and after taking the said note book she once again headed towards the school. When she reached near Tar Badi (wire fencing) near Hawai Patti, there was an Ambassador car standing there and as alleged, the accused respondent came out of the car, pulled the prosecutrix inside the car and forced her to smell something, as a result of which the prosecutrix became unconscious. As alleged by the prosecution, the prosecutrix was taken to some unknown place thereafter.On regaining consciousness, the prosecutrix felt pain in her private parts. On the same day, she was admitted in the District Hospital, Satna in an unconscious condition and information about the incident was given toLaxmikant Sharma (P.W.8), the uncle of the prosecutrix. On 10.01.2003, the prosecutrix was discharged from the Hospital and sent back to her home where she narrated the incident and thereafter an F.I.R was lodged. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was sent for medicalexamination and her clothes were seized and slides were prepared. After receipt of the medical report, F.I.R was registered and site map of the spot was prepared. The Investigating Officer seized various articles which included the prosecutrix’s birth certificate and certificate of the Middle School Examination, 2001.Along with that the relevant page (page No. 20) of the register of the U.S.A Hotel was also seized. After due investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“I.P.C.”) and the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded.The case was subsequently committed by the Magistrate to the Sessions Court. The IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, by his order dated 24.04.2006 passed in Special Case No.123/2003, convicted the accused under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. and held that all the offences against the respondent were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent was awarded 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- for the crime under Section 363 I.P.C., 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- for the crime under Section 366 I.P.C., and 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- for the crime under Section 376 I.P.C. with default clauses.All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.Ther accused aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court carried the matter in appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh bench at Jabalpur. The High Court ruled that the decision of the Trial Court was not sustainable solely on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the fact that the girl was less than 16 years of age at the time of the incident which conclusion was reached by the High Court noticing a variation in the date of birth of the prosecutrix in Ext. P/5 and Ext. P/6 certificates. In certificate Ext.P/5 (birth certificate) the date of birth was disclosed as 29.8.1987, whereas in certificate Ext.P/6 (school certificate) it has been disclosed as 27.8.1987. The High Court found this sufficient to disbelieve that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident. The High Court relied on the statement of PW-11 Dr. A.K. Saraf who took the X-ray of the prosecutrix and on the basis of the ossification test, came to the conclusion that the age of the prosecutrix was more than 15 years but less than 18 years.Considering this the High Court presumed that the girl was more than 18 years of age at the time of the incident. The High Court thus reached the conclusion was that the girl was a consenting party and was more than 18 years of age at the time of the incident and thus, no offence against the accused has been proved.The said judgment and order of the High Court led to the State prefering a Criminal Appeal before the Apex Court, contending that the High Court gave undue...

Supreme Court explains the Mode of age determination of Victim in Rape Cases [Read the Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Supreme Court explains the Mode of age determination of Victim in Rape Cases [Read the Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers